Would You Volunteer to Fight Nazis?

[amorak]

Taking a somewhat modern-day approach to the question I'd phrase it as such (Vlad, go away )

"If Russia Invaded Poland and had it sites set on a WWII-era, Germanesque conquest of Europe, with Canada likely another target thanks to the riches of the arctic, would you volunteer to fight?"

Personally, if it got to the point where England was under threat, I'd definately join up. In fact, if they invaded any decent-sized nation, to the point where major powers declared war, I'd probably join up. Given that we still have a population made up of UK settlers, I think a great deal of Canadians would join up.

An interesting question is that regarding new(er) immigrants, those from eastern block countries and Asians, etc... What would they do? I assume that, without a familial European tie, they'd be less likely to volunteer.

[Locke]

I'd probably be of more use to the war effort by being as far away from said effort as possible.

[CMPunk]

I'm in!

[To Be Quite Honest]

Would the Nazi's oppose Bill C-61?

[GGG]

If 40% of those 18-35 volunteered that is probably a similar number who volunteered for WWII. We ran out of volunteers by the end of WWII and consription efforts were begun though very few conscipts were every deployed.

I think in order to make a fair decision you would have to be faced with it. If I truly believed that a war was fighting for the survival of an ideal I believe in or a country I likes boarders were being invaded and we were running out of volunteers then I would likely volunteer.

That said a war for global or even european domination isn't going to happen anymore. To many nukes for countries use if their existance is at stake. If troops ever landed in Britain that country would get nuked.

Also wars no longer need to be fought with ground troops. If you aren't concerned with Civilian casualties you just bomb and bomb and bomb until you destroyed the industrial capacity of the country. And in a war for survival of countries you would no longer be concerned with causulties.

[amorak]

Originally Posted by GGG

If 40% of those 18-35 volunteered that is probably a similar number who volunteered for WWII. We ran out of volunteers by the end of WWII and consription efforts were begun though very few conscipts were every deployed.

I think in order to make a fair decision you would have to be faced with it. If I truly believed that a war was fighting for the survival of an ideal I believe in or a country I likes boarders were being invaded and we were running out of volunteers then I would likely volunteer.

That said a war for global or even european domination isn't going to happen anymore. To many nukes for countries use if their existance is at stake. If troops ever landed in Britain that country would get nuked.

Also wars no longer need to be fought with ground troops. If you aren't concerned with Civilian casualties you just bomb and bomb and bomb until you destroyed the industrial capacity of the country. And in a war for survival of countries you would no longer be concerned with causulties.

I miss the good old days

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by GGG

If 40% of those 18-35 volunteered that is probably a similar number who volunteered for WWII. We ran out of volunteers by the end of WWII and consription efforts were begun though very few conscipts were every deployed.

I think in order to make a fair decision you would have to be faced with it. If I truly believed that a war was fighting for the survival of an ideal I believe in or a country I likes boarders were being invaded and we were running out of volunteers then I would likely volunteer.

That said a war for global or even european domination isn't going to happen anymore. To many nukes for countries use if their existance is at stake. If troops ever landed in Britain that country would get nuked.

Also wars no longer need to be fought with ground troops. If you aren't concerned with Civilian casualties you just bomb and bomb and bomb until you destroyed the industrial capacity of the country. And in a war for survival of countries you would no longer be concerned with causulties.

Kinda a wrong assumption, air power while effective does not really allow you to take assets, pacify civilians or guarantee victory.

In terms of war you will always have to have troops on the ground. All Air power truly does is punish, but it doesn't guarantee the removal of the enemies troops.

While air power can project power, it doesn't let you keep power

A well trained army will be able to avoid mass casualties from air attacks.

[sclitheroe]

I wonder what percentage of WWII participants from Canada were either first generation Canadians, or the children of first generation parents. I would attribute some of the outcome of a modern day poll to the fact that most of the people asked would identify themselves as wholly Canadian, having many fewer immediate familial ties to Europe, and thus having a much lower emotional and historical tie to the land they are hypothetically being asked to defend..

[CaptainCrunch]

The one thing thats funny, is that Canadian's are really interesting when it comes to things like this. Even prior to WWII if you would have polled a lot of Canadians would have had the same responses as you see here. I have a family, I have a farm to tend, not my war.

But Canadian's tend to break through that when needed. The Russian's used to say that Canadian's were slow to anger, but when angered it was something to see.

If the cause is right, a lot of minds change in a hurry.

When people talk about Canadians we get under estimated and rightfully so. We're seen as week, somewhat good natured, and easy going. But this country has a impressive military history of rising to the occasion as individuals and a nation when the cause is right.

If Russia suddenly as an example started to subjugate a european nation and the call came out, a lot of us would go without hesitation. Canadians are somewhat reluctant warriors, but this nations warriors always seem to punch above their weight class.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Kinda a wrong assumption, air power while effective does not really allow you to take assets, pacify civilians or guarantee victory.

In terms of war you will always have to have troops on the ground. All Air power truly does is punish, but it doesn't guarantee the removal of the enemies troops.

While air power can project power, it doesn't let you keep power

A well trained army will be able to avoid mass casualties from air attacks.

But if troops invade the nukes come out. I don't think we will ever see a ground based war between two nuclear armed oponents.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by GGG

But if troops invade the nukes come out. I don't think we will ever see a ground based war between two nuclear armed oponents.

I don't know if that's necessarily true. If both nations have nukes they probably also both have fairly well trained and well armed armies. The release of nukes by one nations destroys both nations, but its not a guarantee because so much of the worlds nuclear arsenal is based around mobility. Missile armed subs vs rail mounted or truck mounted mobile launchers. Its no guarantee that a counter force strike will remove nuclear capability.

I would expect that if nation A (Nuclear armed) vs nation b (nuclear b) that you might see the use of battlefield nuclear weapons, but not strategic nuclear weapons and both nations would try to fight things out on the ground first. All bets are off if things become truly desperate.

Look at how many times Israel was invaded especially in 1973 when Egyptian Forces were actually quite successful and invaded into Israel, tet the Israeli's who had several airplane mountable nuclear weapons didn't deploy them.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Or as we would like to call you, spontaneous untrained bullet trap number 1.

Pffft, I'll I have to do is wait till the start of the next round and re-spawn.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

I wonder what percentage of WWII participants from Canada were either first generation Canadians, or the children of first generation parents. I would attribute some of the outcome of a modern day poll to the fact that most of the people asked would identify themselves as wholly Canadian, having many fewer immediate familial ties to Europe, and thus having a much lower emotional and historical tie to the land they are hypothetically being asked to defend..

I think that was a big thing in WWI but not as much in WWII. I had 3 uncles fight in WWII and they truly hated the Germans and couldn't wait to kill them.

They may not have known the extent of the genocide but they did know about the cruelty to civilians as Germany blitzed threw Europe. I doubt the world will ever see that kind of hate again.

[Stranger]

I think if the cause was just I would join. I'm 32 with two kids now and it would be because of them that I'd go. Knowing that I could help keep them safe would be my motivation. Also a free trip to Europe would be hard to pass up.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't know if that's necessarily true. If both nations have nukes they probably also both have fairly well trained and well armed armies. The release of nukes by one nations destroys both nations, but its not a guarantee because so much of the worlds nuclear arsenal is based around mobility. Missile armed subs vs rail mounted or truck mounted mobile launchers. Its no guarantee that a counter force strike will remove nuclear capability.

I would expect that if nation A (Nuclear armed) vs nation b (nuclear b) that you might see the use of battlefield nuclear weapons, but not strategic nuclear weapons and both nations would try to fight things out on the ground first. All bets are off if things become truly desperate.

Look at how many times Israel was invaded especially in 1973 when Egyptian Forces were actually quite successful and invaded into Israel, tet the Israeli's who had several airplane mountable nuclear weapons didn't deploy them.

I think it's safe to say if there was ever a war between 2 of the 3 main powers all bets are off for human existence.

None of the 3 would just "give" up, that said the nukes are the reason we'll never see a war like a world war again.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by T@T

I think it's safe to say if there was ever a war between 2 of the 3 main powers all bets are off for human existence.

None of the 3 would just "give" up, that said the nukes are the reason we'll never see a war like a world war again.

Oh I don't disagree. However a war that starts conventionally, lets say a land war between Russia and china wouldn't instantly go to city busting strategic weapons use unless one side or the other was truly in the can.

You would probably see tactical small nuke use. Chemical weapons use. But I think both sides would more then likely settle into a conventional land battle as both sides have too much to lose by escalating to a civilization destroying barrage.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Oh I don't disagree. However a war that starts conventionally, lets say a land war between Russia and china wouldn't instantly go to city busting strategic weapons use unless one side or the other was truly in the can.

You would probably see tactical small nuke use. Chemical weapons use. But I think both sides would more then likely settle into a conventional land battle as both sides have too much to lose by escalating to a civilization destroying barrage.

Problem is Russia would never even try a land war with China, China has twice as many active troops and 5 times more reserve troops available, they would stomp Russia in a week.
Russia has a larger airforce but with mostly "aged" equipment nowdays so I wouldn't even give them much of an advantage there either.

[Bigtime]

I've got my commercial pilots license so it would be Air Force all the way for me. Death from above! (this could also include my death)

Or I could fly a C-17 and bring the supplies to the boys on the ground.

[GGG]

My only fear is that China has a significant demographic gap between the number of girls that have been born and the number of boys that have been born.

If you have a large number of unmarried men with no potential to get married in a culture that encourages you need to do something with them.

If they become an angry group they could put the government in jeoprody so killing of a bunch of them in a war may be a good way to go. I could see a small war with a North Korea or former russian states but not a full scale war with russia

[Rathji]

I would, but I doubt they would take fat guys into the military.